D&D 5E Drop your weapons situation

I don't think this is a "rule" question. I think this is a GM vs player agency question. I saw a good video about this the other day - it's generally a bad idea.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7j1skECRV4

TallIan said:

Crucially, they had the option of fleeing the warband, at least that is how I read this, and trying a different approach. (Go directly to the ruin for examle) They weren't in a "Lay down your weapons or die" situation.

I have seen players deliberately get captured as part of their plan. I've never seen them willingly surrender because that was the only way to stay alive.

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Well, orcs get a bonus dash option when closing to an enemy, so, no, they really couldn't flee. The opening encounter distance was about 600 ft. In a headlong chase, the orcs catch them in 20 rounds. The rogue could have kept the distance open, and the monk and barbarian would have made the chase longer, but the other 3 characters were going to be run down in any attempt to flee in less than 2 minutes. And running would have been cowardly, and so surrender terms for the orcs would have been much worse. Admitting you're overmatched is one thing, but running away like a coward is intolerable.

Ovinomancer said:

Well, orcs get a bonus dash option when closing to an enemy, so, no, they really couldn't flee. The opening encounter distance was about 600 ft. In a headlong chase, the orcs catch them in 20 rounds. The rogue could have kept the distance open, and the monk and barbarian would have made the chase longer, but the other 3 characters were going to be run down in any attempt to flee in less than 2 minutes. And running would have been cowardly, and so surrender terms for the orcs would have been much worse. Admitting you're overmatched is one thing, but running away like a coward is intolerable.

Click to expand...

Ah, I'd forgotten about that.

At the risk of derailing the thread slightly, I would run a chase scene like that out of initiative. I won't go into the reasons why - as that WILL derail the thread - but I mention it to highlight my point that the player should be given a choice, not strong armed into a situation like this.

TallIan said:

Ah, I'd forgotten about that.

At the risk of derailing the thread slightly, I would run a chase scene like that out of initiative. I won't go into the reasons why - as that WILL derail the thread - but I mention it to highlight my point that the player should be given a choice, not strong armed into a situation like this.

Click to expand...

The choice was to go into Orc held territory to access a ruin under direct control of a powerful Orc warlord. The consequence was being captured by the forces of the powerful orc warlord.

And, yes, I wouldn't have run the chase in initiative, either, I would have narrated the inevitable outcome had the players chose to run at that point.

Ancalagon said:

I don't think this is a "rule" question. I think this is a GM vs player agency question. I saw a good video about this the other day - it's generally a bad idea.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7j1skECRV4

Click to expand...

Forgive me for not watching all 15 minutes of this video (cough 1:30 cough), but

(The players) showed up to play D&D. They didn't show up to run away from things. They didn't show up not to fight, not to roll dice. They showed up because they want to be heroes.

Click to expand...

If this is the case, it's not even an agency question anymore. The question is: have your players graduated from elementary school?

Yes, people play D&D to fight, roll dice, be heroes, and (from earlier in the video) have fun. But if that's your solution to every situation, maybe D&D isn't the game for you. Worse, if you can't choose your battles, then you're not only missing an important life skill, you're likely to choose a battle that results in you making your final decision as player or character.

To completely derail the thread, feel free to bring up Fail Forward arguments now.

The way a DM describes a situation along with past experience of near deadly encounters (or deadly encounters) sets the tone of the game. This, in turn, influences how players approach encounters in future sessions.

If a DM uses near deadly encounters and even lets PCs get into situations that overwhelm them, players learn that sneaking, bargaining, running, surrendering, etc. may be better options than fighting in some situations. If players know that foes will focus fire and attack to kill, they become more cautious. If the DM establishes this tone, then 10 archers aiming at one pc will frighten the party, making it more likely that the party will surrender or negotiate if possible.

Interestingly, many people criticized some of the early encounters in The Lost Mines of Phandelver because they might be too deadly for fledgling characters (the goblin ambush for example). But, it is this type of deadly or near deadly experience that is essential for encouraging a more cautious style of play where players have their PCs think more about other options rather than just fighting in each and every encounter.

Another way to make players/PCs more cautious is for the DM to use more variety and take advantage of how players fear the unknown. If they find some encounters that are easy and some that are really hard and they can't determine a pattern or predict when encounters are going to be easy or difficult, they tend to play more cautiously. Fear is a powerful motivator. In a game like this, sometimes the more ambiguous the encounter (not letting the PCs know if it is easy or difficult) will make for more cautious play.

Overall, the DM can establish expectations and change the way players/PCs interpret encounters if that's what the DM wants.

Rhenny said:

The way a DM describes a situation along with past experience of near deadly encounters (or deadly encounters) sets the tone of the game. This, in turn, influences how players approach encounters in future sessions.

If a DM uses near deadly encounters and even lets PCs get into situations that overwhelm them, players learn that sneaking, bargaining, running, surrendering, etc. may be better options than fighting in some situations. If players know that foes will focus fire and attack to kill, they become more cautious. If the DM establishes this tone, then 10 archers aiming at one pc will frighten the party, making it more likely that the party will surrender or negotiate if possible.

Interestingly, many people criticized some of the early encounters in The Lost Mines of Phandelver because they might be too deadly for fledgling characters (the goblin ambush for example). But, it is this type of deadly or near deadly experience that is essential for encouraging a more cautious style of play where players have their PCs think more about other options rather than just fighting in each and every encounter.

Another way to make players/PCs more cautious is for the DM to use more variety and take advantage of how players fear the unknown. If they find some encounters that are easy and some that are really hard and they can't determine a pattern or predict when encounters are going to be easy or difficult, they tend to play more cautiously. Fear is a powerful motivator. In a game like this, sometimes the more ambiguous the encounter (not letting the PCs know if it is easy or difficult) will make for more cautious play.

Overall, the DM can establish expectations and change the way players/PCs interpret encounters if that's what the DM wants.

Click to expand...

This is what I did in our session zero. Between the house rules and home brew content our game is extremely deadly. Plus the dice are what they are, eventually they will roll against you. So far from first to twelfth level characters have been wounded, maimed, crippled and killed. Some deaths being bad luck of the die, others a glorious heroic role play. However, only two characters have been captured. This the result of situation and circumstance, for, the players tend to retreat and occasionally try negotiate a deescalation of the combat.

The first capture had a player turned to stone and then carried off by the medusa and her body guard while the rest of the group was tied down fighting lowly soldiers. The medusa used a cursed item and deceit to convince the player that many years have passed and that she was turned back to flesh so that the medusa could have her point of view of the war for her memoirs. The player shrugged and with loose lips told the entire defense plan of her city to the medusa. The medusa released her still wearing the cursed item and after time when the player made it back to her city and found her still living friends she thought were dead she realized the trickery. The players then had to rework their defense plans at the last minute or face a much more difficult defense.

The next time happened when the paladin led her unit into a mass combat. The dice were not kind to her that day. Her unit was decimated and routed, her steed was disemboweled beneath her, her weapon arm broken and a knee shattered reducing her movement to a slow limp as she tried to stagger away using her shield as a crutch. She had burned through her "spell points" and used all of her daily abilities to save as many of her unit as possible. An opposing knight came upon her with his men, he told her to yield and avoid further blows, that as an officer she would be worth a fair ransom. The paladin quoted Obiwan and was then smacked a bit and captured. When the paladin awoke she was informed that some of her men had also survived and whether or not they lived depended upon her "good behaviour". The paladin unable to earn more "spell points" and only having daily abilities, decided she did not trust the two thieves to gather her ransom. Being a paladin of Venus she decided to not be as chaste as one serving Vesta. She seduced the knight to earn her and the other survivor's release. She then took the "paltry" ransom the other characters had earned and gave it to her temple.

Ancalagon said:

I don't think this is a "rule" question. I think this is a GM vs player agency question. I saw a good video about this the other day - it's generally a bad idea.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7j1skECRV4

Click to expand...

We may disagree on what constitutes a good video. Game play is about choices and those choices should have meaning. Engaging in combat in EVERY instance simply because it is an option is a choice. When choosing this play strategy either there will be dead PCs galore or the opposition has been designed to make this strategy always be successful.

I don't think that all D&D players show up just to fight in every possible scenario. If that were the case then there wouldn't be any reason to provide choices at all. All dungeons could be linear with nothing but a connected series of combats leading to the end. Hardly any entertainment value in that strategically speaking. If the only strategy is CHARGE then attrition & ablation are the only game elements. Yawn.

Likewise, orchestrating surrender scenarios for the sake of some lame pre-defined narrative isn't good for game play either. I prefer to let players make up their own minds and let monsters & NPCs act according to their own best interest within the limits of their attributes.

Also I would like to make it clear that I think that the game automatically assuming for ALL players that the PCs are heroes is possibly the dumbest thing that could have been done in terms of structuring play options. Some players might want to be heroes, some players might just want to chase treasure, and some players might have other goals of their own.

DMMike said:

Forgive me for not watching all 15 minutes of this video (cough 1:30 cough), but



If this is the case, it's not even an agency question anymore. The question is: have your players graduated from elementary school?

Yes, people play D&D to fight, roll dice, be heroes, and (from earlier in the video) have fun. But if that's your solution to every situation, maybe D&D isn't the game for you. Worse, if you can't choose your battles, then you're not only missing an important life skill, you're likely to choose a battle that results in you making your final decision as player or character.

To completely derail the thread, feel free to bring up Fail Forward arguments now.

Click to expand...

D&D isn't life, it's a game - a game of heroes. Players don't turn up so that they can carefully judge each encounter and decide "yes, I think we can bring overwhelming enough odds that this is worth the risk." If they did, they'd be playing peasants, not heroes. They're supposed to be playing the characters who face overwhelming odds - and prevail.

Ultimately, being placed in the position of playing a character who backs down, runs away, surrenders, or lets the opposition succeed can feel like a far more fundamental loss than playing a character who dies heroically in a hopeless battle. It's the loss of that character's identity and role within the game-world. Far better to play a dead hero than a live coward.

If you don't want a mutual HP grind-fest, beating the PCs into submission, have them run into somebody who represents a powerful - overwhelmingly powerful, should the PCs tick 'em off - force. Such as the Thieves Guild, The Army, merchant house's "bodyguards", Favored Servant of BBEG, or a Divine herald. He wants to talk, and brought along much firepower for personal protection (and as a backup plan). The firepower is in fact in back waiting for a signal. They are clearly "ready to rumble" and will probably launch their first salvo if the PCs try to get ready for a fight.

Let me repeat, he wants to talk.

The spokesman will make the PCs "an offer they cannot refuse." And it's not a bad offer, either. Involves some danger and exertion, sure, but that's what adventurers do for a living. There is a payoff or a gift involved, if/when the PCs succeed at this mission.
Lay out the proposal, and let the PCs talk it over amongst themselves.

They might agree to come along peaceably, or under a sign of truce for a limited time, without automatically destroying the neighborhood.